Serana vs.

Sandiganbayan

FACTS:
Hannah Eunice Serana was a senior student of the UP Cebu. A student of a state university is
known as a government scholar. In December 1999, she was appointed by then President
Estrada as a student regent of UP, to serve a one-year term.

Serana registered with the SEC the Office of the Student Regent Foundation, Inc. (OSRFI).

St. Mary Crusade Foundation v. Riel

745 SCRA

FACTS:
Saint Mary Crusade To Alleviate Poverty of Brethren Foundation, Inc. filed an application for
registration with the RTC, Branch 86 of Quezon City, for a parcel of land situated at Krus na
Ligas, Quezon City, with an area of approximately 430 hectares which they and their
predecessors-in-interest have been in continuous and exclusive possession since prior to March
25, 1877 and wherein they have introduced developmental improvements.

During the several hearings conducted by the RTC, the respondents, University of the
Philippines, et al., could not present any evidences nor valid arguments to controvert the
application, prompting the court to refer the case to the LRA for their resolution and proper
disposition.

At the hearing conducted by the LRA, respondents presented among others TCT Nos. 9164 and
1378, which, after careful examination were proven spurious, it appearing that the technical
descriptions thereon referred to parcels of land somewhere in Zambales and not the parcel of
land in question. There being no other evidences to contravene the application of Saint Mary
Crusade to Alleviate Poverty of Brethren Foundation, Inc., the LRA ordered the registration of
the property in its name.

ISSUE:
Whether the LRA has jurisdiction

RULING:

Intramuros Administration v. Offshore Construction and Development Co.

857 SCRA (2017)

FACTS:
Intramuros leased certain real properties of the national government, which it administered to
Offshore Construction. Three properties were subjects of Contracts of Lease:
1. Baluarte De San Andres, with an area of 2,793 sq. m.;
2. Baluarte De San Francisco De Dilao, with an area of 1,880 sq. m.;5 and
3. Revellin De Recoletos, with an area of 1,036 sq. m.6

All three properties were leased for five years, from September 1, 1998 to August 31, 2003. All
their lease contracts included a provision for lease renewals every five years upon the parties'
mutual agreement.

Offshore Construction occupied and introduced improvements in the leased premises. However,
Intramuros and the Department of Tourism (DOT) halted the projects due to Offshore
Construction's non-conformity with PD 1616, which required 16th to 19th centuries'
Philippine-Spanish architecture in the area. Consequently, Offshore Construction filed a
complaint with prayer for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order against
Intramuros and the DOT before the MTC.

During the lease period, Offshore Construction failed to pay its utility bills and rental fees,
despite several demand letters. Intramuros tolerated the continuing occupation, hoping that
Offshore Construction would pay its arrears. To settle its arrears, Offshore Construction
proposed to pay the DOT's monthly operational expenses for lights and sound equipment,
electricity, and performers at the Baluarte Plano Luneta de Sta. Isabel. Intramuros and the DOT
accepted the offer, and the parties executed a MOA. However, Offshore Construction continued
to fail to pay its arrears. After the latest demand letter came unheeded, Intramuros filed a
Complaint for Ejectment before the Manila MTC. Offshore Construction filed its Answer with a
Very Urgent Motion, praying that Intramuros' complaint be dismissed on the grounds of violation
of the rule on non-forum shopping, lack of jurisdiction over the case, and litis pendentia. The
grounds were:
1. it claimed that Intramuros failed to inform the MTC that there were two pending cases
with the Manila Regional Trial Court over Puerta de Isabel II.
2. it argued that the MTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the case since the relationship
between the parties was not one of lessor-lessee but governed by a concession
agreement.
3. it contended that Intramuros' cause of action was barred by litis pendentia, since the
pending RTC cases were over the same rights, claims, and interests of the parties.

The MTC found that Intramuros committed forum shopping and that it had no jurisdiction over
the case.

ISSUE:
Whether the MTC had no jurisdiction over the case because of the contention of Offshore that
their relationship was that of concession rather than mere lease.

RULING:
No, the MTC seriously erred in finding that it did not have jurisdiction over petitioner's complaint.

A review of Intramuros’ Complaint for Ejectment shows that all of the elements of unlawful
detainer in the allegations were present

First, Intramuros alleges that Offshore Construction is its lessee by virtue of three Contracts of
Lease. The validity of these contracts was later affirmed in a Compromise Agreement, which
modified certain provisions of the previous leases but retained the original lease period.
Respondent does not dispute these contracts' existence or their validity.

Second, following Offshore Construction's failure to pay rentals, Intramuros alleges that it has
demanded that respondent vacate the leased premises.

Third, Offshore Construction continues to occupy and possess the leased premises despite
petitioner's demand. This is admitted by Offshore Construction, which seeks to retain
possession and use of the properties to "recoup its multi-million pesos worth of investment."

Fourth, petitioner filed its Complaint for Ejectment within one year of its last written demand to
respondent. Contrary to Offshore Construction’s claim, the one-year period to file the complaint
must be reckoned from the date of last demand, in instances when there has been more than
one demand to vacate.

Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations in the complaint and that
the trial court's jurisdiction is not lost just because the defendant makes a contrary allegation in
its defense. Therefore, the MTC had jurisdiction over the case.